<p>Dinakaran in his plea before the apex court had questioned the procedure adopted by the panel to frame charges against him. A vacation bench of justices G S Singhvi and C K Prasad, while issuing the notice, sought the response from the committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.<br /><br />Dinakaran’s petition further alleged that the Panel had exceeded its brief by framing 16 charges against Dinakaran as against 12 charges decided by the impeachment motion admitted by Rajya Sabha.<br /><br />The petition filed separately contended that the committee has to go strictly as per the admitted impeachment motion.<br /><br /> In the case against Justice Dinakaran, the panel framed charges relating to alleged land encroachment by distant relatives. This was in violation of Articles 121 of the Constitution as even Parliament cannot discuss a judge's action except with regard to his/her discharge of judicial duties, the petiton stated.</p>
<p>Dinakaran in his plea before the apex court had questioned the procedure adopted by the panel to frame charges against him. A vacation bench of justices G S Singhvi and C K Prasad, while issuing the notice, sought the response from the committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.<br /><br />Dinakaran’s petition further alleged that the Panel had exceeded its brief by framing 16 charges against Dinakaran as against 12 charges decided by the impeachment motion admitted by Rajya Sabha.<br /><br />The petition filed separately contended that the committee has to go strictly as per the admitted impeachment motion.<br /><br /> In the case against Justice Dinakaran, the panel framed charges relating to alleged land encroachment by distant relatives. This was in violation of Articles 121 of the Constitution as even Parliament cannot discuss a judge's action except with regard to his/her discharge of judicial duties, the petiton stated.</p>
